[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:30:07 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: mpc, gmp, mpfr, gcc .specs
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 01:00:21PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 05:21 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > > and add compat support afterwards.
> >
> > You mean gcc 3.4.5's libstd++ binaries, right?
>
> Yes. Also I think we should have a well defined rules of what binary
> compatibility Owl 4.0 should have - should it be binary compatible with
> RHEL5? RHEL6? Other distros / ABI? It would help us to identify what
> legacy libraries we should build.
RHEL6. No legacy libraries (pre-RHEL6), I think.
Of course, glibc's symbol versioning will allow running many programs
built for other/older distros as well. But for things like OpenSSL we
choose to go with RHEL6 compatibility.
Previously, we carried older libstdc++ binaries to ease upgrades of
installed Owl systems. This is needed during installworld (unless we
put a lot of packages on one installorder line) and also for some
systems after installworld if local C++ software builds were made on the
system prior to the upgrade.
This time, I think we may choose to do something about the installworld
only - that is, resolve the issue with upgrades of Owl itself, but not
provide old binary-only libstdc++ for upgraded systems.
In your testing, how did you upgrade the system to packages built with
gcc 4.6.1? I guess "make installworld" would fail on attempt to upgrade
libstdc++ (and remove old one) before upgrading some C++ programs (like
groff and lftp). Right?
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
